Cheng-Ting Tsai1, Peter V Robinson1, Carole A Spencer2, Carolyn R Bertozzi3. 1. Department of Chemistry, University of California , Berkeley, California 94720, United States. 2. USC Endocrine Laboratories, Department of Medicine, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, California 91105, United States. 3. Department of Chemistry and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States; Department of Chemistry and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States.
Abstract
Antibodies are widely used biomarkers for the diagnosis of many diseases. Assays based on solid-phase immobilization of antigens comprise the majority of clinical platforms for antibody detection, but can be undermined by antigen denaturation and epitope masking. These technological hurdles are especially troublesome in detecting antibodies that bind nonlinear or conformational epitopes, such as anti-insulin antibodies in type 1 diabetes patients and anti-thyroglobulin antibodies associated with thyroid cancers. Radioimmunoassay remains the gold standard for these challenging antibody biomarkers, but the limited multiplexability and reliance on hazardous radioactive reagents have prevented their use outside specialized testing facilities. Here we present an ultrasensitive solution-phase method for detecting antibodies, termed antibody detection by agglutination-PCR (ADAP). Antibodies bind to and agglutinate synthetic antigen-DNA conjugates, enabling ligation of the DNA strands and subsequent quantification by qPCR. ADAP detects zepto- to attomoles of antibodies in 2 μL of sample with a dynamic range spanning 5-6 orders of magnitude. Using ADAP, we detected anti-thyroglobulin autoantibodies from human patient plasma with a 1000-fold increased sensitivity over an FDA-approved radioimmunoassay. Finally, we demonstrate the multiplexability of ADAP by simultaneously detecting multiple antibodies in one experiment. ADAP's combination of simplicity, sensitivity, broad dynamic range, multiplexability, and use of standard PCR protocols creates new opportunities for the discovery and detection of antibody biomarkers.
Antibodies are widely used biomarkers for the diagnosis of many diseases. Assays based on solid-phase immobilization of antigens comprise the majority of clinical platforms for antibody detection, but can be undermined by antigen denaturation and epitope masking. These technological hurdles are especially troublesome in detecting antibodies that bind nonlinear or conformational epitopes, such as anti-insulin antibodies in type 1 diabetespatients and anti-thyroglobulin antibodies associated with thyroid cancers. Radioimmunoassay remains the gold standard for these challenging antibody biomarkers, but the limited multiplexability and reliance on hazardous radioactive reagents have prevented their use outside specialized testing facilities. Here we present an ultrasensitive solution-phase method for detecting antibodies, termed antibody detection by agglutination-PCR (ADAP). Antibodies bind to and agglutinate synthetic antigen-DNA conjugates, enabling ligation of the DNA strands and subsequent quantification by qPCR. ADAP detects zepto- to attomoles of antibodies in 2 μL of sample with a dynamic range spanning 5-6 orders of magnitude. Using ADAP, we detected anti-thyroglobulin autoantibodies from humanpatient plasma with a 1000-fold increased sensitivity over an FDA-approved radioimmunoassay. Finally, we demonstrate the multiplexability of ADAP by simultaneously detecting multiple antibodies in one experiment. ADAP's combination of simplicity, sensitivity, broad dynamic range, multiplexability, and use of standard PCR protocols creates new opportunities for the discovery and detection of antibody biomarkers.
Circulating antibodies represent one of
the most prevalent classes
of biomarkers for human disorders including infectious,[1] autoimmune,[2] neurological,[3] and oncological[4,5] diseases. Detection
of low-abundance antibodies using highly sensitive assays improves
patient outcomes significantly by enabling early diagnosis and therapeutic
intervention.[4−6] However, the physical deformation of antigen upon
immobilization on solid supports impedes the detection of many disease-specific
antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), protein
microarrays, lateral flow assays, or immuno-PCR.[7−16] Furthermore, the unpredictable orientation of surface-deposited
antigen can conceal important epitopes for antibody binding.[17]Solution-phase approaches to antibody
detection offer significant
advantages. The solution-phase radioimmunoassay (RIA) is the current
gold standard detection method for antibodies that exclusively bind
intact antigen,[7] such as anti-insulin autoantibodies
used for the early detection of type 1 diabetes.[9,10] RIAs
are more sensitive than ELISAs but use hazardous radioactive reagents
and demand laborious washing and centrifugation steps. Additionally,
the limited multiplexing capacity of RIA hinders its application to
the discovery of new antibody biomarkers. Consequently, current methods
do not meet the need for an assay that preserves the native conformation
of antigens and enables sensitive, multiplexed detection of their
cognate antibodies. Such a method would greatly improve diagnostic
strategies for diseases with conformation-sensitive antibody biomarkers
and accelerate the discovery of underexplored biomarkers in various
human pathologies.We report the development of a new assay,
antibody detection by
agglutination-PCR (ADAP), for the robust and rapid detection of antibodies
in a solution-phase format (Figure ). We took inspiration from two distinct assay formats:
(1) the classic latex agglutination assay,[18] where serum antibodies cluster antigen-latex particles into optically
detectable complexes, and (2) proximity ligation assays in which protein–protein
complexes are detected by PCR amplification.[19−22] ADAP harnesses the agglutination
power of antibodies to aggregate antigen–DNA conjugates and
thereby drive ligation of oligonucleotides, in turn producing an amplifiable
PCR amplicon (Figure ). The ligation event converts the PCR-incompetent half-amplicons
on each antigen–DNA conjugate into a new and distinct PCR reporter.[19] Notably, this solution-phase step preserves
the antigen’s native conformation and eliminates the need for
washing and centrifugation protocols to remove unbound secondary reporters.[19] These features significantly improved sensitivity
over existing techniques while only requiring slight modifications
to a standard PCR protocol.
Figure 1
Schematic representation of antibody detection
by agglutination-PCR
(ADAP). (a) The sample containing the target antibody analyte is incubated
with a pair of antigen–DNA conjugates. Each conjugate bears
an oligonucleotide sequence comprising either the 5′-(red)
or 3′-(green) half of a full amplicon. (b) Next, antibodies
within the sample agglutinate the antigen–DNA conjugates and
position them for ligation upon the addition of a bridging oligonucleotide
(blue) and DNA ligase. (c) The newly generated amplicon (red/green)
is exponentially amplified with primers that bind their respective
sites (red and green arrows) and quantified by real-time qPCR. The
immune complex of antibodies and antigen–DNA conjugates shown
here represents the proposed mechanism for detecting polyclonal antibodies
with relatively large antigens at high concentrations. For monoclonal
and anti-small molecule antibody detection, as well as when antibody
concentration is significantly lower than that of antigen–DNA
conjugates, the complex likely consists of a single antibody bound
to two antigen–DNA conjugates (Figure S5).
Schematic representation of antibody detection
by agglutination-PCR
(ADAP). (a) The sample containing the target antibody analyte is incubated
with a pair of antigen–DNA conjugates. Each conjugate bears
an oligonucleotide sequence comprising either the 5′-(red)
or 3′-(green) half of a full amplicon. (b) Next, antibodies
within the sample agglutinate the antigen–DNA conjugates and
position them for ligation upon the addition of a bridging oligonucleotide
(blue) and DNA ligase. (c) The newly generated amplicon (red/green)
is exponentially amplified with primers that bind their respective
sites (red and green arrows) and quantified by real-time qPCR. The
immune complex of antibodies and antigen–DNA conjugates shown
here represents the proposed mechanism for detecting polyclonal antibodies
with relatively large antigens at high concentrations. For monoclonal
and anti-small molecule antibody detection, as well as when antibody
concentration is significantly lower than that of antigen–DNA
conjugates, the complex likely consists of a single antibody bound
to two antigen–DNA conjugates (Figure S5).
Results
Synthesis of Antigen–DNA
Conjugates
Central
to a sensitive ADAP assay is the creation of antigen–DNA conjugates.
For protein antigens, we synthesized these components by lysine-to-thiol
cross-linking using sulfosuccinimidyl 4-(N-maleimidomethyl)-cyclohexane-1-carboxylate
(sulfo-SMCC) and thiolated oligonucleotides.[20] Briefly, maleimides were installed on lysines of purified antigen
by reaction with sulfo-SMCC in PBS (Figure S1). Thiolated oligonucleotides were activated by dithiothreitol (DTT)-mediated
reduction. Both antigen and oligonucleotides were desalted, pooled,
and allowed to react overnight. Unreacted reagents were removed by
extensive purification with size-exclusion spin columns. Antigen-DNA
conjugation ratios were determined by UV–vis spectroscopy and
by SDS-PAGE analysis. Typically, a 1:2 antigen-to-DNA conjugation
ratio yielded the optimal signal in ADAP assays. We found that greater
degrees of antigen–DNA conjugation can mask epitopes for antibody
binding and thus lead to reduced assay sensitivity (Figure S11).For small molecule antigens, N-hydroxysuccinimidyl (NHS) ester-activated derivatives were incubated
with amine-modified oligonucleotides in a one-step conjugation (Figure S5a). The resulting small molecule–DNA
conjugates were characterized by high-resolution mass spectrometry.
In contrast to protein-based antigens, small molecules contain far
fewer antibody epitopes due to their size. It is thus critical to
design conjugation sites that still preserve the accessibility of
epitopes to antibodies. For the dinitrophenol (DNP)–DNA conjugate
(Figure a and Figure S5), we used the same conjugation site
that was used to generate the immunogen for the antibody we tested
(a DNP–BSA conjugate in which DNP was linked to lysine side
chains).[23,24]
Figure 4
Detection of antibodies
in mouse serum or human patient plasma
and comparison with commercial diagnostics. (a) Detection of anti-dinitrophenol
(DNP) from rabbit antiserum. Antiserum was serially diluted into PBS
and analyzed by ADAP. A dilution series of antigen-naïve
serum was analyzed as a negative control. (b) Detection of conformation
sensitive antithyroglobulin from patient plasma. Antithyroglobulin-positive
patient plasma was diluted into PBS as indicated and analyzed by ADAP.
Antithyroglobulin-negative plasma from healthy subjects was analyzed
as a negative control. (*p < 0.01) (c) Identical
samples of antithyroglobulin-positive human plasma were analyzed by
ADAP, an FDA-approved radioimmunoassay (Kronus RIA) and two electrochemiluminescent
assays (Beckman and Roche ECL).
ADAP Workflow
In a typical ADAP
experiment (Figure ), pairs of antigen–DNA
conjugates are diluted in buffer. One antigen–DNA conjugate
bears the 5′ half of a PCR amplicon, while the other conjugate
bears the 3′ half that is 5′ phosphorylated to enable
ligation. The pooled conjugates are added to 2 μL of antibody-containing
analyte and incubated for 30 min to allow binding. Next, DNA ligase
and a bridging oligonucleotide are added and incubated for 15 min.
Following selective hydrolysis of the bridging oligonucleotide, the
ligation mixture is preamplified, and the resulting products are analyzed
by qPCR. As high Ct values of qPCR are
associated with low assay reproducibility,[25] we included a preamplification step in the ADAP protocol to ensure
high reproducibility and low intra-assay (<1%) and interassay (<3%)
variations.[42]
Assay Validation and Specificity/Sensitivity
Analysis
As a first target, we synthesized insulin–DNA
conjugates to
detect anti-insulin antibodies. Insulin autoantibodies are an important
early biomarker of type 1 diabetes,[9] but
the development of a standard immunoassay is thought to be frustrated
by the denaturation of insulin on solid supports.[10,26] Currently, RIA is the principal technology for detecting insulin
autoantibodies.[10,26] A solution-phase PCR assay would
reduce the amount of time needed for the test and remove the requirement
of radioactive reagents.We serially diluted affinity-purified
anti-insulin antibodies into various biological matrices and analyzed
them by ADAP. We observed a dose-dependent response across 5 orders
of magnitude with very similar results obtained in different biological
diluents (Figure a).
The detection limit in serum was found to be 170 zeptomoles of antibody
in a 2 μL sample (Table S1). We performed
a head-to-head comparison with a direct ELISA and found an 865-fold
improvement in limit of detection (Figure b and Table S1). The specificity of ADAP was determined by assaying samples containing
isotype control antibodies, which yielded no detectable signal (Figure c). Similarly, no
detectable signal was observed when the assay was performed with irrelevant
antigen–DNA conjugates (Figure S12). These results demonstrate that ADAP detects target antibodies
with superior sensitivity and specificity over traditional methods
while using much smaller sample volumes.
Figure 2
Sensitivity and specificity
of ADAP. (a) Detection of serially
diluted purified anti-insulin antibodies in phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS) or bovine serum. The x-axis displays the moles
of antibody in a 2 μL sample. The y-axis is
ΔCt calculated by the difference
of Ct value between the sample and a blank.
(b) Head-to-head comparison with an ELISA for the detection of anti-insulin
antibody. The right y-axis represents arbitrary intensity
units (AIU) from the ELISA. (c) The specificity of ADAP was investigated
by analysis of serially diluted isotype IgG in serum. No detectable
signal was observed. Error bars represent standard deviation from
triplicate samples, but for many data points are too small to be visualized.
Sensitivity and specificity
of ADAP. (a) Detection of serially
diluted purified anti-insulin antibodies in phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS) or bovine serum. The x-axis displays the moles
of antibody in a 2 μL sample. The y-axis is
ΔCt calculated by the difference
of Ct value between the sample and a blank.
(b) Head-to-head comparison with an ELISA for the detection of anti-insulin
antibody. The right y-axis represents arbitrary intensity
units (AIU) from the ELISA. (c) The specificity of ADAP was investigated
by analysis of serially diluted isotype IgG in serum. No detectable
signal was observed. Error bars represent standard deviation from
triplicate samples, but for many data points are too small to be visualized.To show that ADAP scales over
a broad range of antigen molecular
weights, we assayed antigen–antibody pairs for biotin (∼0.24
kDa), GFP (26 kDa), and mouse IgG (150 kDa). For all three pairs,
ADAP consistently detected low attomoles of antibody (Figure , Table S1 and Figures S2–S4).
Figure 3
ADAP detects zeptomoles to attomoles of
antibodies that bind antigens
across a wide molecular weight distribution. The limits of ADAP detection
for antibiotin, anti-insulin, anti-GFP, and antimouse IgG antibodies
(antigen molecular weights of 0.24, 5.8, 27, and 150 kDa respectively)
was determined by analyzing antibodies added into PBS or bovine serum.
Error bars represent the standard deviation from triplicate samples.
ADAP detects zeptomoles to attomoles of
antibodies that bind antigens
across a wide molecular weight distribution. The limits of ADAP detection
for antibiotin, anti-insulin, anti-GFP, and antimouse IgG antibodies
(antigen molecular weights of 0.24, 5.8, 27, and 150 kDa respectively)
was determined by analyzing antibodies added into PBS or bovine serum.
Error bars represent the standard deviation from triplicate samples.
Detection of Serum-Derived
Antibodies against Small Molecules
Antibodies against small
molecules can mediate allergic responses
to drugs, particularly those capable of covalently modifying host
proteins.[24,27] However, the detection of small molecule
binding antibodies by solid-phase immunoassay is challenging. Small
molecules do not adsorb readily to plastics used in common immunoassays
and therefore require specialized surfaces to produce an appropriate
substrate.[28] We were curious whether anti-small
molecule antibodies could be detected by ADAP given the limited ability
of such a conjugate to form large aggregates (Figure S5b). As a model system, we synthesized DNP–DNA
conjugates and incubated them with rabbit antisera from animals inoculated
with DNP–BSA. Significantly, agglutination was detected with
as little as 0.74 ng of total antiserum protein (Figure a and Figure S5 and Table S1).
This experiment demonstrates that ADAP can sensitively detect natively
produced antibodies from whole serum and has the potential to monitor
allergic responses to small molecules.Detection of antibodies
in mouse serum or humanpatient plasma
and comparison with commercial diagnostics. (a) Detection of anti-dinitrophenol
(DNP) from rabbit antiserum. Antiserum was serially diluted into PBS
and analyzed by ADAP. A dilution series of antigen-naïve
serum was analyzed as a negative control. (b) Detection of conformation
sensitive antithyroglobulin from patient plasma. Antithyroglobulin-positive
patient plasma was diluted into PBS as indicated and analyzed by ADAP.
Antithyroglobulin-negative plasma from healthy subjects was analyzed
as a negative control. (*p < 0.01) (c) Identical
samples of antithyroglobulin-positive human plasma were analyzed by
ADAP, an FDA-approved radioimmunoassay (Kronus RIA) and two electrochemiluminescent
assays (Beckman and Roche ECL).
ADAP Is 1000-fold More Sensitive than Clinically Used Techniques
Next, we used ADAP to detect antibodies directly from patient samples.
Thyroglobulin autoantibodies mediate and are diagnostic of autoimmune
thyroiditis.[29] They can also be a critical
biomarker for monitoring thyroid cancer recurrence following therapeutic
thyroidectomy.[12] A widely applicable, sensitive,
and accurate detection assay for anti-thyroglobulin autoantibodies
could prevent misdiagnosis of cancer recurrence and unnecessary treament
for healthy patients.[12] Currently, radioimmunoassays
remain the gold standard for detecting this autoantibody.[12] However, only specialized laboratories retain
the full capacity to perform this test, as stringent regulations for
use and disposal of radioactive reagents limit widespread adoption.
We analyzed anti-thyroglobulin-positive patient plasma by ADAP with
thyroglobulin–DNA conjugates using healthy human plasma as
a negative control. A robust ADAP signal was observed from the anti-thyroglobulin-positive
samples (2 μL) down to 105-fold dilution with nearly
no background from healthy controls (Figure b). Identical samples were assayed using
three FDA-approved clinical laboratory assays: the Kronus/RSR radioimmunoassay
and two electrochemiluminescence assays (Beckman Coulter and Roche).
Impressively, ADAP detected anti-thyroglobulin antibodies with a detection
limit 3–4 orders of magnitude lower than these standard assays
(Figure c).
Circumventing
Interference from Anti-DNA Autoantibodies
One potential confounding
issue for ADAP is the interference from
endogenous anti-DNA autoantibodies. These antibodies might agglutinate
antigen–DNA conjugates in an antigen-agnostic manner and result
in false positives. Patients suffering from autoimmune disorders such
as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) often produce anti-DNA antibodies
in high titer.[30] They are also generally
present in small quantities in about 10% of healthy adults.[31] We obtained patient plasma that was independently
verified to harbor anti-DNA antibodies, as well as normal plasma with
much lower levels of anti-DNA antibodies as a negative control. We
used GFP–DNA conjugates as a control antigen to observe the
extent of interference from anti-DNA autoantibodies, since there should
be no naturally occurring anti-GFP antibodies in human plasma.As expected, we observed strong signal from anti-DNA-positive patient
plasma and weak yet robust signal from normal plasma (Figure a), demonstrating that these
antibodies can interfere with ADAP analysis. Interestingly, after
adding in anti-GFP antibodies, identical dose–response curves
were observed for both anti-DNA-positive patient plasma and normal
plasma (Figure S6). This observation is
consistent with the notion that high affinity anti-GFP antibodies
dominate the agglutination event and ADAP signal, regardless of the
presence of anti-DNA antibodies.
Figure 5
Circumventing interference from anti-DNA
autoantibodies by competition
with free DNA. (a) Investigation of interference from anti-DNA autoantibodies.
GFP–DNA conjugates were used to analyze anti-DNA-positive patient
plasma and healthy normal plasma. Patient samples were grouped into
those containing anti-single-stranded DNA antibodies (ssDNA) and those
with anti-dsDNA antibodies (dsDNA). Interference was observed at dilution
factors of 1 and 10 for all sample types (b) Competitor DNA was titrated
into undiluted patient and normal plasma. The addition of competitor
DNA eliminated background signal from interfering antibodies. (c)
The experiment in (a) was repeated but with the addition of 100 μM
competitor DNA which eliminated interference. (d) Purified GFP antibodies
were added to anti-DNA positive and normal plasma. Detection of GFP
antibodies was performed in the presence of 100 μM competitor
DNA in all samples to confirm that it did not disrupt ADAP performance.
Circumventing interference from anti-DNA
autoantibodies by competition
with free DNA. (a) Investigation of interference from anti-DNA autoantibodies.
GFP–DNA conjugates were used to analyze anti-DNA-positive patient
plasma and healthy normal plasma. Patient samples were grouped into
those containing anti-single-stranded DNA antibodies (ssDNA) and those
with anti-dsDNA antibodies (dsDNA). Interference was observed at dilution
factors of 1 and 10 for all sample types (b) Competitor DNA was titrated
into undiluted patient and normal plasma. The addition of competitor
DNA eliminated background signal from interfering antibodies. (c)
The experiment in (a) was repeated but with the addition of 100 μM
competitor DNA which eliminated interference. (d) Purified GFP antibodies
were added to anti-DNA positive and normal plasma. Detection of GFP
antibodies was performed in the presence of 100 μM competitor
DNA in all samples to confirm that it did not disrupt ADAP performance.In an abundance of caution, we
sought a general solution to circumvent
potential interference from anti-DNA autoantibodies. To this end,
we titrated in free DNA as a competitor to “protect”
the antigen–DNA conjugates from counterfeit aggregation (Figure b). At 100 μM
of the competitor DNA, we no longer observed spurious signal from
anti-DNA antibodies (Figure b,c). To validate that competitor DNA does not otherwise complicate
ADAP performance, both anti-GFP antibodies and competitor DNA were
added to anti-DNA positive plasma and normal plasma (Figure d). ADAP analysis of these
samples showed the expected dose response with no interference from
anti-DNA antibodies. The limit of detection of anti-GFP antibodies
in human plasma was similar to that in buffer (48 and 27 attomoles,
respectively). Together, these results demonstrate that the addition
of competitor DNA allows us to circumvent interference in human plasma
samples.
Multiplexed Detection of Antibodies by DNA Barcoding
Multiplexed detection of several antibodies can be accomplished by
use of orthogonal DNA sequence pairs to barcode distinct antigens.
Diseases such as type 1 diabetes have multiple autoantibody biomarkers
(anti-insulin, anti-IA-2, anti-GAD, anti-ZnT8).[9] Several clinical protocols use antibody panels to establish
a diagnosis. A barcoded assay could help by detecting antibodies in
a single test.We generated a set of orthogonal antigen–DNA
conjugates either with biotin (Sequence Set 1; Table S2) or mouse IgG (Sequence Set 2; Table S2) as the antigen. The amplicons were designed such
that Set 1 primers did not amplify the Set 2 amplicon and vice versa.
The two sets of antigen–DNA conjugates were pooled and incubated
with anti-biotin antibodies, anti-IgG antibodies, or both and then
analyzed by ADAP. The sample incubated with the anti-biotin antibodies
showed signal only when analyzed with Set 1 primers, while the sample
incubated with the anti-mouse IgG antibodies showed signal only with
the Set 2 primers. The mixed sample containing both antibodies generated
signal when analyzed with both sets of primers (Figure a and Figure S7). Importantly, there was no detectable cross-talk in this multiplexed
experiment.
Figure 6
ADAP can be multiplexed. (a) Detection of two orthogonal antibodies
in one ADAP experiment. Biotin–DNA and mouse IgG–DNA
conjugates bearing either DNA sequence 1 or 2 (Table S2), respectively, were incubated with either anti-biotin
antibody only, antimouse IgG antibody only, or both antibodies together,
and then analyzed by ADAP. (b) Multiplexed detection of anti-antigen
antibody and total antibody levels by ADAP and proximity ligation
assay (PLA), respectively. Biotin–DNA conjugates and anti-IgG–DNA
conjugates were incubated with samples containing constant total IgG
but varied fractions of anti-biotin antibodies. These samples were
analyzed by ADAP and PLA. Error bars represent the standard deviation
from triplicate samples, but for many data points are too small to
be visualized.
ADAP can be multiplexed. (a) Detection of two orthogonal antibodies
in one ADAP experiment. Biotin–DNA and mouse IgG–DNA
conjugates bearing either DNA sequence 1 or 2 (Table S2), respectively, were incubated with either anti-biotin
antibody only, antimouse IgG antibody only, or both antibodies together,
and then analyzed by ADAP. (b) Multiplexed detection of anti-antigen
antibody and total antibody levels by ADAP and proximity ligation
assay (PLA), respectively. Biotin–DNA conjugates and anti-IgG–DNA
conjugates were incubated with samples containing constant total IgG
but varied fractions of anti-biotin antibodies. These samples were
analyzed by ADAP and PLA. Error bars represent the standard deviation
from triplicate samples, but for many data points are too small to
be visualized.Additionally, typical
antibody tests do not take into account total
immunoglobulin concentration. This can lead to false negatives for
patients with immunoglobulin deficiency, which is a common problem
in Celiac disease.[32] We envisioned that
simultaneous detection of antigen-binding capacity and total immunoglobulin
content could differentiate false negatives from abnormally low immunoglobulin
levels.To multiplex the detection of total IgG and antigen-binding
ability,
we generated anti-IgG antibody–DNA conjugates from a single
batch of anti-IgG polyclonal antibodies. The batch was split into
two pools, and each was modified with either the upstream or downstream
fragment of the Set 2 PCR amplicon. As in proximity ligation,[19−22] the two halves of the amplicon are brought close together when the
polyclonal antibody–DNA conjugates bind nearby epitopes, allowing
for ligation and subsequent detection by PCR. Goat anti-biotin antibodies
were diluted into total goat IgG such that the total amount of IgG
remained constant, but the anti-biotin fraction varied. ADAP analysis
with the Set 2 primers showed no change in signal, corresponding to
the constant concentration of IgG in every sample, whereas signal
generated from the Set 1 primers increased as the fraction of anti-biotin
antibodies increased (Figure b and Figures S8–9). This
shows that detection of the total antibody levels can be multiplexed
with detection of antigen-specific antibodies.
Effect of Antibody Valency
and Clonality on ADAP Performance
Finally, we wished to investigate
the impact of antibody valency
and clonality on the performance of ADAP. Serum antibodies are multivalent
and polyclonal to allow optimal agglutination of pathogens for effective
neutralization and clearance.[33] However,
the limited agglutination power of Fab fragment and monoclonal antibodies[33] might preclude them from ADAP-based detection.We incubated mouse IgG–DNA conjugates either with bivalent
anti-mouse IgG or the corresponding monovalent Fab fragment and analyzed
them by ADAP. As expected, robust signal was detected for the anti-mouse
IgG sample and no signal from the Fab sample (Figure a). Next, we incubated either polyclonal
or monoclonal anti-GFP antibodies with GFP–DNA conjugates.
Interestingly, both antibodies displayed similar limits of detection
(Figure b), but with
very different dynamic ranges (about 6 or 4 orders of magnitude for
polyclonal or monoclonal antibody, respectively). We hypothesized
that this difference was due to the saturation of binding sites when
the concentration of the antigen–DNA conjugates matches that
of the antibody analytes (the “hook effect”).[34] While the monoclonal antibody shows classic
hook behavior when the antibody concentration (1.3 nM) is close to
the antigen–DNA conjugate concentration (0.5 nM), the polyclonal
antibody hook effect is delayed until a much higher antibody concentration
(64 nM). We attribute this delayed hook effect to the availability
of multiple antigen binding sites with polyclonal antibody. Polyclonal
antibodies enjoy a higher effective epitope concentration and thus
a wider dynamic range. These results demonstrate ADAP is well-suited
for the detection of both poly- and monoclonal antibodies.
Figure 7
Effects of
valency and clonality of the target antibody on ADAP
performance. (a) Mouse IgG–DNA conjugates were incubated either
with polyclonal antimouse IgG antibodies, monovalent Fab fragment
antimouse IgG antibodies, or a control Fab fragment that recognizes
unrelated antigens, and analyzed by ADAP. (b) GFP–DNA conjugates
are incubated either with polyclonal or monoclonal anti-GFP antibodies
and analyzed by ADAP. Error bars represent the standard deviation
from triplicate samples, but for many data points are too small to
be visualized.
Effects of
valency and clonality of the target antibody on ADAP
performance. (a) Mouse IgG–DNA conjugates were incubated either
with polyclonal antimouse IgG antibodies, monovalent Fab fragment
antimouse IgG antibodies, or a control Fab fragment that recognizes
unrelated antigens, and analyzed by ADAP. (b) GFP–DNA conjugates
are incubated either with polyclonal or monoclonal anti-GFP antibodies
and analyzed by ADAP. Error bars represent the standard deviation
from triplicate samples, but for many data points are too small to
be visualized.
Discussion
Of
all the protein types one might want to detect in a clinical
setting, antibodies are by far the most numerous.[1−6] They are used as biomarkers of autoimmune diseases, cancers, infectious
diseases, neurological disorders, and vaccine efficacy.[1−6] Despite the high value of antibodies as clinical diagnostic targets,
conventional assays for their detection such as solid-phase ELISAs
or RIAs have significant deficiencies. The ADAP technology uniquely
addresses these limitations, being operationally simple, ultrasensitive,
and multiplexable, as well as applicable to antibodies that recognize
conformation-dependent epitopes.Previous applications of proximity
ligation share the common format
of using DNA-conjugated antibodies to detect an analyte of interest.[19−22] ADAP inverts this scenario, using a DNA-conjugated antigen for detection
of antibodies. The assay exploits the intrinsic multivalency of antibodies
to drive the proximity effect. The impressive dynamic range of ADAP
appears related to the ability of antibodies to aggregate their antigens,
as suggested by the superior performance of poly- versus monoclonal
antibodies (Figure b). This mechanism is unique to antibody detection and to ADAP.The advantages of the ADAP platform for antibody detection are
considerable. As a solution phase assay, ADAP circumvents the protein
denaturation and epitope masking problems of surface-immobilized-antigen
based formats. While solution-phase assays such as the radioimmunoassay
exist, they are difficult to perform, are slow, and have limited capacity
for multiplexing. ADAP is 3 orders of magnitude more sensitive than
clinically used assays, creating new possibilities for the early detection
and treatment of disease. As a no-wash assay, ADAP eliminates the
tedious optimization of washing and centrifugation steps that is necessary
to minimize the loss of low-affinity antibodies. It does not require
isolation of unique monoclonal antibodies as required for certain
types of ELISAs. Since the ADAP does not rely on animal antibodies
as capture reagents, it obviates interference from patient heterophilic
antibodies.[35]The reduction in sample
consumption and multiplexing capability
lessen the demand for patient serum to promote patient compliance
in applications requiring repeated monitoring. Significantly, ADAP
is readily deployable in many clinical settings, as it uses only conventional
PCR equipment and reagents, which are standard devices in diagnostic
laboratories. The custom reagents (antigen–DNA conjugates,
ligation enzymes, and a bridging oligonucleotide) are used in ultralow
quantities. For example, 100 μg of a 60 kDa antigen-DNA conjugate
is sufficient to perform approximately ∼1.7 million assays.Infectious diseases such as HIV increasingly rely on combined antibody
and antigen tests to improve confidence in diagnosis.[36] Combined with traditional proximity ligation[19−22] and PCR tests, ADAP opens the possibility of performing all three
types of tests (genome-derived nucleic acids, antigens, and antibodies)
in a unified platform. ADAP could also be easily adapted to any number
of novel point-of-care PCR platforms to provide highly sensitive solution
phase antibody tests in low resource settings. Because of these favorable
attributes, its operational simplicity, and the leveraging of existing
technology, we predict that ADAP will provide a useful analytical
platform for a multitude of clinical and research applications.
Methods
Synthesis
of Antigen–DNA Conjugates
Insulin–DNA
conjugate was synthesized by resuspending recombinant insulin (Sigma-Aldrich)
to make a 1 mg/mL solution in reaction buffer (55 mM sodium phosphate,
150 mM sodium chloride, 20 mM EDTA, pH 7.2). One μL of a 4 mM
solution of sulfo-SMCC (Pierce Biotechnologies) in anhydrous DMSO
was added to 10 μL of the protein solution and incubated at
RT for 2 h. Thiolated-DNA (IDT) was resuspended to 100 μM in
reaction buffer. Three microliters of the 100 μM thiolated-DNA
stock was then added to 50 μL of reaction buffer. To this solution,
4 μL of a 100 mM solution of DTT (Life Technologies) was added
to reduce the oxidized thiolated-DNA. The solution was then incubated
at 37 °C for 1 h. 7k MWCO gel microspin columns (Life Technologies)
were equilibrated with reaction buffer. The reduced oligonucleotides
were desalted by the equilibrated microspin columns twice. Unreacted
sulfo-SMCC was removed from the insulin solution by a 3k MWCO centrifugal
filter column (EMD Millipore) to a final volume of 60 μL. The
thiolated-DNA and insulin solutions were then mixed, reacted overnight
at 4 °C, and then purified by 10k MWCO filter column. Conjugate
concentrations were determined by BCA assay (Life Technologies). Conjugation
efficiencies were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and silver staining as described
previously.[37] A representative silver-stain
is shown in Figure S1. DNA-to-antigen ratios
of the conjugates were estimated by UV–vis absorption. Antigen–DNA
conjugates were stored at 4 °C for short-term usage or aliquoted
for long-term storage at −80 °C. GFP-, mouse-IgG-, and
thyroglobulin–DNA conjugates were synthesized similarly with
slight modifications. Briefly, unreacted SMCC was filtered by 7k MWCO
gel microspin columns. Conjugates were purified from unconjugated
DNA by centrifugal filter columns (GFP, 30k MWCO column; mouse IgG,
100k MWCO column; thyroglobulin, 100k MWCO column).Finally,
biotin–DNA conjugates was purchased from IDT. DNP–DNA
conjugates were synthesized as follows.Twenty-five milligrams DNP-NHS
ester (Life Technologies) was dissolved in anhydrous DMSO to make
a 50 mM solution. 5′ or 3′ amine functionalized DNA
(IDT) was resuspended in ddH2O to make a 1 mM solution.
40 μL of the 1 mM DNA solution was added to 300 μL of
PBS with 50 mM NaHCO3. 80 μL of the NHS ester solution
was added over 2 days at RT under constant rotational mixing. Modified
DNA was then precipitated by adding 2.5 vol of ethanol and 0.1 vol
of 10 M ammonium acetate and then incubated for 4 h. Precipitated
DNA was pelleted by centrifugation for 15 min at 4 °C, followed
by a gentle wash in ice cold 70% ethanol-H2O. The pellet
was then resuspended in 100 μL of ddH2O and then
purified again by precipitation as before to ensure complete removal
of unreacted small molecules. After the second precipitation, the
pellet was diluted in ddH2O to make a 100 μM stock
solution, which was stored at −20 °C until used. Synthesis
was confirmed by high resolution LC-MS.
Antibody Detection by Agglutination-PCR
(ADAP)
One
fmole of paired antigen–DNA conjugates was resuspended in 2
μL of incubation buffer C (2% BSA, 0.2% Triton X-100, 8 mM EDTA
in PBS). Two microliters of analyte was added to the conjugates and
then incubated at 37 °C for 30 min. 116 μL of ligation
mix (20 mM Tris, 50 mM KCl, 20 mM MgCl2, 20 mM DTT, 25
μM NAD, 0.025 U/μL ligase, 100 nM bridge oligo, 0.01%
BSA, pH = 7.5) was added, and then incubated at 30 °C for 15
min. Ten microliters uracil-excision mix (0.025 U/μL Epicenter
Bio) was added and incubated for 15 min at 30 °C. Twenty-five
microliters of the solution was added to 25 μL of 2x PCR Master
Mix (Qiagen) with 10 nM primers and then amplified by PCR (95 °C
for 10 min, 95 °C for 15 s, 60 °C for 30 s 12 cycles). The
reaction was then diluted 1:20 in ddH2O. 8.5 μL of
the diluted PCR samples were added to 10 μL of 2x qPCR Master
Mix (Life Technologies) with 1.5 μL of primers (final concentration
690 nM). qPCR was performed on either a Bio-Rad CFX96 or a Bio-Rad
iQ5 real-time PCR detection system.The ADAP assays for affinity
purified anti-insulin (Abcam), anti-biotin (Abcam), anti-GFP (Vector
Laboratories), and anti-mouse IgG antibodies (Pierce Biotechnologies)
were carried out as described above with the following modifications.
For dilution in buffer, 2 μL of antigen–DNA conjugates
was mixed with 2 μL of serial diluted antibodies (concentration
range: 102–10–4 μg/mL) in
buffer C or buffer only (blank). For dilution in fetal bovine serum
(Sigma-Aldrich), antibodies were spiked in fetal bovine serum to obtain
2 wt %/wt antibodies solution, which was then serial diluted in buffer
C (concentration range: 102–10–4 μg/mL) for ADAP assay. Isotype antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotech)
subjected to the same preparation were analyzed side-by-side as negative
controls.
ADAP Detection Assay for Anti-DNP Antibodies from Antiserum
The ADAP PCR detection assay for anti-DNP antiserum (Abcam) was
carried out as described above with the following modifications. Anti-DNP
antiserum was obtained from rabbit inoculated with DNP-conjugated
carrier proteins without further purification. Two microliters of
DNP–DNA conjugates was mixed with 2 μL of serial diluted
anti-DNP antiserum (concentration range: 0.4–0.0002 mg/mL)
in buffer C for ADAP detection.
ADAP Detection Assay for
Anti-Thyroglobulin Patient Plasma
The ADAP detection assay
for anti-thyroglobulin positive patient
plasma (ImmunoVision) was carried out as described above with the
following modifications. Two microliters of thyroglobulin–DNA
conjugates were mixed with 2 μL of serially diluted patient
plasma (dilution factor: 100–106) in
buffer C for ADAP detection.
Multiplexed ADAP for Anti-Biotin and Anti-Mouse
IgG Antibodies
Three sets of ADAP experiments were carried
out to investigate
the orthogonality of anti-biotin and anti-mouse IgG antibody detection.
The multiplex ADAP assay for anti-biotin and anti-mouse IgG antibody
was carried out as described above with the following modifications.
1 μL of biotin–DNA conjugates (sequence 1 as in Table S2) and 1 μL mouse-IgG–DNA
conjugates (sequence 2 as in Table S2)
are mixed with 2 μL of serial diluted either (1) anti-biotin
antibodies (concentration range: 102–10–4 μg/mL) in buffer C or buffer only (blank) (2) anti-mouse antibodies
(concentration range: 102–10–4 μg/mL) in buffer C or buffer only (blank) (3) both anti-biotin
and anti-mouse antibodies (concentration range: 102–10–4 μg/mL) in buffer C or buffer only (blank).
The antigen and antibody mixtures were processed and analyzed as described
above.
Multiplexed ADAP and PLA Detection for Anti-Biotin Antibodies
and Total IgG
ADAP and PLA[19−22] (proximity ligation assay) were
used in conjunction to quantify the specific antibodies and total
antibodies amounts in a given sample. The multiplex ADAP detection
assay for anti-biotin and total IgG was carried out as described above
with the following modifications. 1 μL biotin-DNA conjugates
(sequence 1) and 1 μL anti-goat-IgG–DNA conjugates (sequence
2) are mixed with 2 μL of serially diluted either (1) goat anti-biotin
antibodies (concentration range: 102–10–4 μg/mL) in buffer C or buffer only (blank) (2) goat IgG (concentration
range: 102–10–4 μg/mL) in
buffer C or buffer only (blank) (3) both anti-biotin and goat IgG
in buffer C, where total IgG is fixed at 0.7 μg/mL and anti-biotin
antibodies fraction varied from 100%–0% or buffer only (blank).
The antigen and antibody mixtures were processed and analyzed as described
above.
Direct ELISA Detection of Anti-Insulin Antibodies
Recombinant
humaninsulin (Sigma) was resuspended to 1 mg/mL in PBS. 75 μL
of the insulin solution was added to wells of an ELISA plate (Santa
Cruz Biotech). The plate was covered with a plastic membrane, and
the insulin was allowed to adsorb to the plate overnight at 4 °C.
Excess supernatant was decanted, and the wells were blocked with 5%
BSA in PBS overnight at 4 °C. Anti-insulin antibodies were diluted
into PBS and allowed to bind at RT for 1 h. The supernatant was decanted
and the wells were washed 4× with PBS. Secondary antibody-HRP
probes (Santa Cruz Biotech) were diluted 1:5000 in 5% BSA in PBS and
added to the wells and allowed to incubate at RT for 1 h. The supernatant
was decanted and then washed 4× in PBS. 50 μL of TMB substrate
solution as added and allowed to develop for 15 min and then quenched
by addition of 50 μL of 2 M H2SO4. Absorbance
was read at 450 nm in a plate reader.
Circumventing Interference
from Anti-DNA Antibodies
Anti-DNA antibodies positive patient
plasmas were purchased from
ImmunoVision. ADAP detection of anti-DNA plasma was carried out as
described above with slight modifications. For detection of anti-GFP
antibodies, anti-GFP antibodies are spiked into anti-DNA and normal
plasma. A sample of 2 μL serial diluted anti-GFP solution is
incubated with 2 μL solution containing GFP–DNA conjugates
and with or without 100 μM competition DNA. The competition
DNA is purchased from IDT with the sequence below:
Radioimmunoassay
and Electrochemiluminescent Assays for Anti-Thyroglobulin
Autoantibodies
Tg-RIAs (Kronus), the Beckman Access TgAb
(Beckman Coulter) and Roche Elecsys TgAb (Roche Diagnostics) were
performed per the manufactures’ instructions at University
of Southern California. These assays are standardized against WHO
reference serum 65/93. The assays were performed as previously described.[38]
Data Analysis
Three replicate ADAP
measurements were
carried out for each antibody sample in buffer C in addition to a
blank. The replicates were measured by taking aliquots from the same
dilution series and the same preparation of ligation, excision and
preamplification steps but placing them in three different wells for
qPCR analysis. A representative real-time qPCR measurement plot taken
from an ADAP assay for the serial dilution of an anti-biotin antibody
is shown in Figure S10. A single threshold
fluorescence value was automatically chosen by Bio-Rad software. For
each curve, the PCR cycle number with the fluorescence value corresponding
to the chosen threshold value was defined as the cycle threshold (Ct) value. ΔCt is defined as the Ct value of the blank
minus the Ct value of the samples.[39] The value of ΔCt is proportional to the initial amplicon concentration. This amplicon
concentration is then also proportional to the amount of target antibodies
present in the initial dilution series. A volume of 2 μL from
each serial dilution series was taken for ADAP measurement. Thus,
the number of antibody molecules in each measurement is (2 ×
10–6 L) × antibody concentration (M) ×
Avogadro’s number. A nonlinear four parameter logistic fit[40] for an antibody dilution series is determined
using custom software. The limit of detection for the ADAP assay is
defined as the average ΔCt value
of the buffer C only blank plus 3 standard deviations of the blank.[41] The value of each limit of detection is calculated
relative to the corresponding blank.
Intra-Assay and Interassay
Variation for ADAP
The intra-assay
variation for ADAP was determined by repeating ADAP measurements in
triplicate for anti-GFP antibodies six times on the same plate. The
intra-assay variation is defined as standard deviation of the triplicate
divided by mean of the triplicate[42] and
is consistently <1%. The interassay variation for ADAP is evaluated
by measuring anti-GFP antibody concentrations in triplicate on five
different plates on different days. The interassay variation defined
by standard deviation of the concentrations from five different plates
divided by the mean of concentrations from five different plates[42] and is <3%. Both the intra-assay and interassay
variation of ADAP are far below the accepted biomedical assay variation
values, which are 10% and 15% respectively.[42] ADAP’s superior intra-assay and interassay performance is
likely a result of having fewer overall handling steps, no wash steps,
and no centrifugation steps. The extensive washing and centrifuging
requirements for other assays might compromise their precision and
reproducibility.
Authors: Karen S Anderson; Sahar Sibani; Garrick Wallstrom; Ji Qiu; Eliseo A Mendoza; Jacob Raphael; Eugenie Hainsworth; Wagner R Montor; Jessica Wong; Jin G Park; Naa Lokko; Tanya Logvinenko; Niroshan Ramachandran; Andrew K Godwin; Jeffrey Marks; Paul Engstrom; Joshua Labaer Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Tracy T Chuong; Alessia Pallaoro; Chelsea A Chaves; Zhe Li; Joun Lee; Michael Eisenstein; Galen D Stucky; Martin Moskovits; H Tom Soh Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Roxana Jalili; Joe Horecka; James R Swartz; Ronald W Davis; Henrik H J Persson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Xiaoyu Zhang; Zihan Xu; Dina S Moumin; Daniel A Ciulla; Timothy S Owen; Rebecca A Mancusi; José-Luis Giner; Chunyu Wang; Brian P Callahan Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Cheng-Ting Tsai; Peter V Robinson; Felipe de Jesus Cortez; Maria L B Elma; David Seftel; Narges Pourmandi; Mark W Pandori; Carolyn R Bertozzi Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Vito Lampasona; David L Pittman; Alistair J Williams; Peter Achenbach; Michael Schlosser; Beena Akolkar; William E Winter Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 12.167
Authors: Kenneth Danh; Donna Grace Karp; Peter V Robinson; David Seftel; Mars Stone; Graham Simmons; Anil Bagri; Martin Schreibman; Andreas Buser; Andreas Holbro; Manuel Battegay; Laurence M Corash; Carl Hanson; Cheng-Ting Tsai Journal: medRxiv Date: 2020-06-02
Authors: Peter V Robinson; Cheng-Ting Tsai; Amber E de Groot; Julia L McKechnie; Carolyn R Bertozzi Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Cheng-Ting Tsai; Kaori Mukai; Peter V Robinson; Melissa A Gray; Malika B Waschmann; Shu-Chen Lyu; Mindy Tsai; Rebecca S Chinthrajah; Kari C Nadeau; Carolyn R Bertozzi; Stephen J Galli Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 10.793